The Moot.

Yesterday I had my first Moot, which essentially is a mock trial for law students. Here is a "condensed transcript" of the turning point in the moot, which was an appeal case concerning contracts:

Junior Counsel for the Appellant (me): "It is therefore submitted, Your Lordship, that the Respondent was negligent within the meaning of section 2(1) of the misrepresentation Act 1967, as there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the represented facts were true.

Judge: "Mr. Pedersen, is this a question of fact or law?"

Junior Counsel: "Of fact, My Lord."

Judge: "Can we therefore not assume that the trial judge has considered the matter and decided that there were reasonable grounds?"

Junior Counsel (after standing for a while with his mouth open staring silently at the judge): "I do not know what to answer to that."

Judge: "Very well, carry-on."

Junior Counsel: "Yes, My Lord."

(More silence from the Junior Council)

Judge: "I believe this brings us to submission number 5 of your skeleton argument."

Junior Counsel: "submission number 5 is a point on section 2(2), which has the same basis as section 2(1). There is therefore no further submssion, thank you Your Lordship."

To say that it went bad is an understatement. In one sentence the judge took away the basis for all my arguments. The experience was depressing as I must have misunderstood the whole thing and has left me very confused.